NP: Beck, Midnite Vultures (CD)
Watching the current histrionics over pre-war intelligence, it sorta came to me that the GOP and the Bushies have a really obvious way out. It would innoculate both the White House and the CIA, as well as gird the party for an eventual post-Dubya future. Unless, of course, they run the table so hard in 2004 that they change the Constitution to allow more than two terms. Which, sadly, isn't even out of the question.
Normally, I'd hesitate to give any ammo to anyone so willing to shoot, but this seems so obvious that even Karl Rove may have already thought of it.
Blame Dick Cheney.
Everything I'm reading portrays the dual notions that the White House doesn't want to take responsibility, but at the same time, admitting any kind of "scandal" in the spook house could be equally damaging to Dubya's political career. Booting the veep solves both problems, admittedly in part because the electorate at large is too stupid to even draw a causal line between the Oval Office and the much ballyhooed undisclosed location. There's a reason Bush was in the air and Cheney was underground after 9/11 happened, don'tcha think? And is there any reason to believe Cheney couldn't continue to run the show from behind the scenes, even without the cool business cards and stationery?
Anyway, the other thing this affords is the chance to annoint a successor for the 2008 election in the event that Bush does crush the Dems in 2004, as running from the vice-presidency gives tremendous advantage toward winning. Just ask Al Gore, who did it in 2000.
What disturbs me most about this scenario, aside from everything, is that it exposes New York Times harpy Maureen Dowd as a GOP mole, since she's one of the first I've seen to suggest this course of action. Aaron Sorkin's gonna be pissed when he finds out.
On the other side of the fence, lots of hubbub about MoveOn.org and the Super Bowl this week. Seeing as how I don't particularly give a rat's ass about football, and MoveOn got on my shit list when they swore they'd only opt me in on FCC expansion topics, then hit me up to stop Schwarzenegger's election, it would be easy for me to ignore this story.
Alas, no such luck. I never watched any of the finalists for MoveOn's little contest, but going the Hitler route just seems absolutely absurd on its face. Of course, with the news of the week, you have to imagine the eventual Democratic nominee can get a lot of mileage out of original source material.
First, you show Bush "implying" ties between Iraq and al Queda, then show him explicitly stating there were no ties. Show Bush emphasizing Iraq's stockpiles of biological weapons, then David Kay's recent testimony. If you've got Dubya on tape with the cost of the Medicare bill, cross that with the actual costs that came out this week. For shits and grins, add him plugging the economy on the day we only added 1,000 jobs. Very little of this is spun data, although my cousin Michael disagrees on that last one, but I'd respond that by asking where that 6 to 7, maybe 8 percent growth in Q4 went.
The point being, Bush is often proven to be flat-out wrong, and sometimes within the confines of his own speeches and comments. That he gets away with it is the thing that both infuriates and depresses me the most. Which is sort of ironic, considering how often I think about trying to make piles of money by taking advantage of the emphatically stupid and gullible. The difference is, my conscience kicks in and I don't follow through. At the end of the day, that's a pretty unfortunate distinction to make between one's self and the people running the country.
I agree that politicians and commentators comparing practically anyone (Saddam, even) to Hitler is ridiculous, cheapens the real horror of 1933-45 and usually makes the speaker look rather rhetorically incompetent, if not hysterical. What I think is interesting is all the Republicans acting like this is the first time this comparison had ever been inappropriately made.
This post has some interesting examples from Ancient History. (ie. The Clinton administration):
http://tinyurl.com/2jyb3
Also this one illustrates how the newly-loathsome Dennis Miller has come around on the topic of Hitler comparisons:
http://tinyurl.com/363ae
(You really should allow anchor tags in your comments...)
No, why do they need to sacrifice Cheney when they can sacrifice the intelligence community?
I knew this is the route Bush would take. Blame it on intelligence, and at worse end up firing Tenet.
In the meantime, you preempt the opposition by calling for an investigation into the pre-war Iraq itelligence, creating headlines like "Bush Calls For Independant Investigation" that make you look like you're proactively tackling the problem.
In the end, however, Bush has (again) a layer of protection between him and his critics, because we're not discussing or investigating the *political* decisions made that led to the preemtive war; we're not investigating the White House. No: we first refuse to investigate *anything*, and then "begrudgingly" agree (or rather "call for", as if it's his own idea) an investigation... but not of him, but of the "intelligence community."
Blair's taking the same tactic in the UK. The only difference is that at least in the UK people are saying more openly (and in the press) "Hey waitaminute: that's fine and dandy, investigating the intelligence, but what about investigating the politics behind the intelligence?"
Hank
notabbott.com is not spamming you -- please read
however, if you'd like e-mails about upcoming shows and whatnot, click here
Housekeeping note
January 2, 2014
Slacker Profiteering
July 7, 2013
In My Defense
June 20, 2013
When A Foul Isn't A Foul
February 5, 2013
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License.